IMPORTANT POINTS
Unexplained delay and latches.
Non-impleading of necessary party.

JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J.-The appellants, four in number, participated in a selection process conducted by the Second Field Ordnance Depot (2 FOD) in the year 1984 for the post of Lower Division Clerks (LDCs). Despite their selection for the post in question they were not issued appointment letters on the pretext that there was a ban on appointments. In December 1993, pursuant to the order passed in OA No. 29/jk/92 dated 24.8.1993 by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’), respondent No. 4 was issued an appointment letter. The appellant Nos. 1 to 3 were given appointment in May, 1996 on the basis of the directions issued on 24.7.1995 by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in SWP No. 1052 of 1991.

2. It is worth noting that Parveen Singh and others, whose names, had figured in the select list, being aggrieved due to non appointment, had preferred OA No. 539-HP of 1986 before the Chandigarh Bench of the tribunal which allowed the OA vide order dated 25.8.1987 directing the respondent herein to issue appointment letters to them. The respondents instead of appointing the said Parveen Singh and others against the vacancies in 9 FOD, where there were ten vacancies of LDCs, appointed them against the vacancies falling in 2 FOD where there were 27 vacancies for LDCs with effect from 1.1.1990.

3. As set forth, said Parveen Singh and others filed second OA No. 1476- pb-1991 before the Chandigarh Bench of the tribunal with a prayer to issue a direction to the respondents to appoint them as LDCs with effect from 1.5.1985 with all consequential benefits including seniority, pay and allowances, etc. on the foundation that similarly situated persons who were selected along with them had been appointed with effect from 1985. The tribunal allowed the application vide order dated 13.10.2000 directing that their appointment shall be treated with effect from 1.5.1985 and they shall be extended the benefit of fifty per cent of back wages and other consequential reliefs.

4. The aforesaid order was called in question by the respondents before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No. 1158 of 2001 and a Division Bench of the High Court, as per order dated 12.7.2001, set aside the order of the tribunal to the extent of grant of back wages but did not interfere with the direction ante-dating their date of appointment and other consequential reliefs granted by the tribunal.

5. As has been stated earlier that the appellants had approached the tribunal and were appointed on two different dates sometime in December, 1993 and May, 1996. After the High Court of Punjab and Haryana passed the order, the respondents conferred the benefit on said Parveen Singh and others. Thereafter, the present appellants submitted a series of representations to extend to them the similar benefits on the foundation of parity. The said prayer was negatived by the respondents by order dated 21.7.2004.

6. Being dissatisfied with the said action of the respondents the appellants knocked at the doors of the Principal Bench of the tribunal in OA No. 2082 of 2004. It was contended before the tribunal that grave injustice had been done to them by the respondents inasmuch as they were not given the equal treatment that was given to similarly placed employees; and that their seniority position and prospects for promotion had been immensely affected. The stance and stand put forth by the appellants was resisted by the respondents contending, inter alia, that as the appellants were not parties to the application before the Chandigarh tribunal and were not covered by the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court, they were not extended the benefit; that only those general category candidates who were placed higher in merit list were appointed prior to them excepting one Kalu Ram who belonged to the Scheduled Caste category; that the appellants could not have been appointed as there was a ban and thereafter they were appointed as per